168 Ind. App. 491 - Offutt v. Sheehan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An application for a new trial, made on the ground of newly discovered evidence, must be supported by affidavit and such affidavit or affidavits must contain a statement of the facts showing (1) that the evidence has been discovered since trial; (2) that it is material and relevant; (3) that it is not cumulative; (4) that it is not merely impeaching; (5) that it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) that due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) that the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) that it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) that it will probably produce a different result. Cansler v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 565 , 281 N.E.2d 881 ; Tungate v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 48 , 147 N.E.2d 232 . In deciding whether a piece of newly discovered evidence would produce a different result the presiding judgment (sic) may properly consider the weight which a reasonable trier of fact would give it and, while so doing, may also evaluate its probable impact on a new trial in light of all the facts and circumstances shown at the original trial of the case.” Emerson v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 399 , 287 N.E.2d 867, 871, 872 , cited in Offutt v. Sheehan (1976), 168 Ind. App. 491 , 344 N.E.2d 92, 96, 97 . (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Ind. App. 120 - Farley v. Farley